Granville Community Calendar

BOARD, OF ZONING AND BUILDING, APPEALSNovember 6, 1997 -Special MeetingMinutesPresent: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric StewartMembers Absent: Bob Essman, Betty AllenAlso Present: Reza Reyazi, Village PlannerThe purpose of tonight' s meeting is to consider informationthat BZBA gained at an on-site review of the Presbyterian Churchand add it to information gathered previously. It is not a publichearing, but there is some new information to consider. Mr. Reyazisaid the main point was to determine how far the building encroachesinto the ROW. It will actually be 2' back inside theproperty line, but the portico will extend 4' beyond property lineinto the ROW of North Main. Mr. Reyazi met with the fire department,who said they cannot make the turn at the CE building fromBroadway on Locust toward North Main. They would prefer an 18' linealong the CE building. When there are cars parked there, a lot ofthe maneuverbility is lost. Perhaps compact-car only parking couldbe posted there. There needs to be a modification, and the churchwill handle this. That may be more of a GPC issue.Parking. Mr. Sharkey asked Mr. Acklin Jhat percentage of thecongregation are Granville residents? Mr. Acklin thought 90 per cent. He asked how long is the east portico? Mr. Miller thoughtit was 36'.Mr. Acklin said the chimney already encroaches into ROW. Allthe other churches encroach already, by inches.Mr. Sharkey said parking could become a problem in the future.While the problem exists on paper, in actuality it is not a bigproblem. With parking available in close proximity, there is sufficientparking, and on weekdays there is no problem. A lot of theparking will take place during non-peak hours. If we wanted to puton a condition, we might say a rent or lease in the new additionsometime in the future is not to be granted on a long-term basis.Mr. Herman said the purpose of village square space is to belimited to church use. But other things might be appropriate.Mr. Stewart said conditions could be added for fire trucks.Mr. Acklin could work that out.Lot Coverage. Mr. Herman believes the percentage restrictionwas to not create massive structures. In this case it is deceptive;3 per cent is not very much. GPC sees this as an acceptable soluti6n. Looking at massing of other churches, they are closer to sidewalk.Ms. Caravana asked what type of trees would be planted if theevergreen must be cut down and asked to mitigate extending into thee* :u„.R«,·,O ,W- M*«is„·.S-.'h:a»rkey said-a, nyti-me-lot coverage·ds·d„iseussed;·i>t·-:i.S-'n.·ot:'inappropriate to discuss greenspace and shrubbery. As a conditionto the variance, at a minimum any tree or shrub that must be removedmust be replaced with similar sized trees or shrubs. Also ifthe church is eventually able to build, to soften the effect of thelarge addition, the church should turn the width from curb line tobuilding into greenspace.Setback. Ms. Caravana said setback is closer than the otherchurches, 4' closer. This is also mitigated because the portico isopen rather than a closed structure. But she wished they couldpush it back farther. The Methodist curb is 21' 5" and the Presbyterianis 27' so a notation should be made that the portico is ang4<open structure and we would be less willing to have aR-ope#structureencroaching. Mr. Sharkey feels the church personnel have donetheir homework and he is not uncomfortable. This should be a condition.Portico no closer than 21 '5" and should remain open .Ms. Caravana looked at rationale for approving variances. ForCriteria E, Health, Safety, General Welfare, most variances probablydon' t affect it. Parking is questionable, but the actualproblem is less in actuality than on paper. Parking could becreated by knocking down buildings, which nobody wants. Regardingcoverage, it could be reduced only with difficulty. The applicantshave done what they could to mitigate the problems expressed by Mr.Seith, whose house is in the village square, which is unusual.Even though it blocks light, this would still happen with anaddition that wouldn' t require a variance. Any building shouldinclude upgrading of stormwater runoff. Some utilities need to berelocated. There should be no increased demand on public demand ondrainage. The burden is on the church to take care of utilities.We should vote variance by variance and add conditions.Parking. MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE FORPARKING CONTINGENT ON THESE TWO CONDITIONS: 1) NO PORTION OF THENEW FACILITY WILL BE LEASED OR RENTED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATIONON A CONTINUING OR LONG-TERM BASIS FOR ANY USE OTHER THANNONPROPFIT CHURCH-RELATED ACTIVITIES. (2) FOR APPROVAL, THE SPACESIN THE FIRE LANE TO NORTH AND WEST OF THE CE BUILDING ARE NOT FORPARKING OF VEHICLES EXCEPT COMPACT CARS. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Lot Coverage. MR. HERMAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASING LOTCOVERAGE TO 78 PERCENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BEING MET: (1)ATTEMPT TO RETAIN ALL SHRUBS AND TREES TO SCREEN THE BUILDING, ANDANY REMOVED MUST BE REPLACED BY TREES AND SHRUBS OF SIMILAR DIAMETER.(2) TO SOFTEN THE EFFECT, THE CHURCH MUST TURN THE WIDTH OF THE CURRENT ALLEYWAY FROM MAIN TO EXTERIOR WALL OF NEW ADDITION FORPORTICO INTO GREEN SPACE, APPROXIMATELY 19' 8" LENGTHWISE NORTH TO SOUTH ALONG MAIN AND 21' 2" UP TO PORTICO. SIDEWALK IS OK TO ACCESS BUILDING. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Setback. MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE SETBACK ON EAST SIDE OFBUILDING BE APPROVED WITH THESE CONDITIONS: 1) PORTICO CAN EXTEND."p= .,U=·P·T,,»O,BWIF+N:QM.,ORE·:THAN ·3..1'·,0,!'I,N .T.(D·R,·OW2.,() R »AMP,v: EADENG TO»I,T.R,EMAIN.4,1'; 7,:*-'t .'' .1 .,OPEN STRUCTURE. MR. SHARKEY ADDS EXTERIOR WALL MUST BE NO CLOSERTHAN 27' TO CURB LINE AS SUBMITTED IN THE MILLER ARCHITECTURALPLANS AND THE, DRAWING SUBMITTED . ( 3) PORTICO BE NO CLOSER THAN21' 2" TO CURB LINE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON MAIN. 4) PORTICO ISTO REMAIN OPEN. MEASUREMENT IS FROM OUTER SIDE OF CURB AS ITCURRENTLY EXISTS ON MAIN STREET. MR. STEWART SECONDED. IT WASUNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.The criteria have been discussed verbally, and we used them asa guide. Criteria A is not really applicable. Mr. Sharkey is towrite up Finding of Fact. Members agreed that it would be sufficientto write up findings rather than running through the criteriaone by one for each variance.Our decisions on these three variances are not to be construedas opposition or support to VC to let the church use the church inany other manner. Our decisions are only on these three variancesand are not to be construed as support of anything else.CITIZENS COMMENTS: Dorothy Garrett had some comments about buildingcodes and historic structures, but was unintelligible on tape.Respectfully submitted,Betty Allen (from cassette tape